If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

However, in your previous post, you suggested that you use Xtol in a "stock" solution.

I will also say that manufacturer recommendations have always been just a guide, and not necessarily something I take as truth. Most of the people here, for instance have set their own film speed over the years.

Re: f64

However, in your previous post, you suggested that you use Xtol in a "stock" solution.

I will also say that manufacturer recommendations have always been just a guide, and not necessarily something I take as truth. Most of the people here, for instance have set their own film speed over the years.

Lenny

Help me here. If I want the smallest grain I should not use the 1:1 dilution. The stock is the one recommended, right?

Re: f64

Help me here. If I want the smallest grain which dilution I should use? Stock right?

You're right... I'm too tired, I guess I can't read anymore. I think I read what I expected it to say....

It doesn't make sense. But its also an ascorbic acid thing so maybe its not supposed to make sense. I'd have to test it to really believe it. However, good film speed, sharpness and shadow detail also sound good.

Re: f64

Re: f64

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

You're right... I'm too tired, I guess I can't read anymore. I think I read what I expected it to say....

It doesn't make sense. But its also an ascorbic acid thing so maybe its not supposed to make sense. I'd have to test it to really believe it. However, good film speed, sharpness and shadow detail also sound good.

Lenny

Lenny,

Nearly all developers that contain a fair amount of grain solvent (sodium sulfite) give finer grain when used straight (or stock solution). I don't know the exact formula of Mytol but I am fairly certain that it contains quite a bit of sodium sulfite. The same is true of D76. Stock solutions give finer grain but diluted 1:1 or 1:2 you get more grain but also slightly more acutance.

So finer grain with the stock solution is exactly what we should expect with Xtol (and with D76 and all developers that contain a lot of sodium sulfite). This is Developer Theory 101.

Re: f64

Originally Posted by sanking

Lenny,

Nearly all developers that contain a fair amount of grain solvent (sodium sulfite) give finer grain when used straight (or stock solution). I don't know the exact formula of Mytol but I am fairly certain that it contains quite a bit of sodium sulfite. The same is true of D76. Stock solutions give finer grain but diluted 1:1 or 1:2 you get more grain but also slightly more acutance.

So finer grain with the stock solution is exactly what we should expect with Xtol (and with D76 and all developers that contain a lot of sodium sulfite). This is Developer Theory 101.

Sandy

Well, it's a long time since DT 101 and I haven't been teaching for quite some time, so its only what sticks in this brain of mine. However, I do remember that "fine grain" didn't necessarily mean fine grain that way I wanted it to. If it means the grains are smaller, then they are farther apart, resulting in a more grainy look. This was the party line when I was learning this. It seemed duplicitous of the developer companies to state that something was fine grain - which made me think this assumption may not be true, either. What is your take on this...

I was always interested in a denser grain pattern - imagining that the image would be smoother.

Re: f64

Sandy - I only use conventional developers for lab applications and not general shooting, but I've got to agree about D76 having greater acutance at 1:1 than standard; but I wonder if this is just a function of longer development time and the
way the grain forms? Certainly edge acutance appears a little better. D76 is something
I frequently use for a distinct upsweep curve in films like FP4, for what I call an
upsweep mask in color reproduction. Since this is an unsharp maks in the first place,
I'm concerned about the grain only if it is capable of appearing gritty in the final
color print, which it isn't, even in enlargements from 35mm. But that's more a function
of how it interacts with the dye cloud of the color original. I running some tests this
week where it must dovetail with black-and-white film interpositives, which might
give a different practical result. It's a non-issue with the 8x10 format I generally work
with, since print magnification is so modest, but I still want to know just in case I
do something analogous someday with small format. A scanner would, of course, see
things differently, and even the type of anti-newton glass or spray involved seems to contribute to the final effect in high magnifcations.

Re: f64

Grain is a bit difficult to get a handle on because sometimes when it is very prominent it is not unpleasant, and at the same time when very it is very smooth it can be aesthetically unpleasing. So I don't really know what to say other than the obvious fact that grain is going to look different depending on whether you wet process (and in that case also dependent on the light source, sensitivity of the paper, and color of the negative if a pyro one) or scan to print digitally. And there is probably a greater variation in grain look with scanning than with analog printing because the difference in scanners and operators will give results that are in the middle of the board, and off the board. I have compared the same negative scanned by me with my Eversmart Pro and by other folks with several different drum scanners and the look of grain is remarkably different.

Bottom line, you are right to do your own testing with your scanning and printing work flow because it is likely to give results that are specific only to you. Just don't be surprised that others may have totally different opinions based on the reality of their own work flow.

BTW, you can send me the test film when you like but I will probably not be able to get to it until after February 7 as I am teaching a workshop next week (five straight days) to someone who wants to learn it all, i.e. scanning technique, digital work flow, pt/pd printing and carbon transfer printing.

Re: f64

However, I don't think any of this has anything to do with why pyro developers produce sharper negatives. That is due primarily, IMO, to the fact that pyro developers tan the image site and this results in a more precise reduction because there is very little migration of development outside of the image site.

Several years ago I compared several pyro staining and tanning developers with several traditional non staining developers. In every case the pyro developers produced better resolution by about 15% to 20% compared to the traditional developers. The issue is that you have to go to a fairly high magnification to appreciate the difference

Sandy
I agree with these comments completely, the hardening effect containing the migration is most important in the highlights , which allow the shadow detail to come up.
We have processed thousands of runs of different film and developers and completely agree with Sandy's findings.
We have switched countless photographers to Pyro due to this tannin effect.